Financing energy efficient renovation of social housing Mini guide no.3 / March 2012 AN URBACT II PROJECT

• What are the modalities to reduce the ’investment costs and income’ gap? • How can the landlord / tenant dilemma be solved? • What are the barriers to implementation? • What are potential solutions for an efficient financial engineering?

Cash is a European URBACT II project around a network of 10 cities and 1 region from 9 countries: Bridgend-UK, Brindisi-IT, Rhône Alpes Regional Council-FR, Echirolles-FR, Frankfurt-DE, Les Mureaux-FR, Eordea-EL, Tatabanya-HU, Utrecht-NL, Yambol-BG. Its ambition: to propose new solutions and promote new policies in the European Union for the energy-efficient renovation of social housing.

Lead Partner

Introduction & subject significance

Content STATE-OF-THE-ART

2

How much money is needed? – The European context Existing modalities to reduce the gap between investment costs and income Reducing the investment costs Getting additional income Financing by a third party (TPF)

KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED

4

How are the financial instruments perceived by CASH partners? Barriers Specific needs pinpointed by CASH partners Potential solution for efficient financial engineering

EXAMPLES FROM PARTNERS

This 3rd Mini-Guide on Financial Instruments is based on the exchange of experience between CASH partners, in the preparation of and during the 3rd transnational thematic seminar held in Frankfurt, Germany, September 7 to 9, 2011. It analyzes existing financial instruments for energy efficient (EE) renovation available in the 9 European countries of the CASH partner cities. Besides underlining successful instruments in use in CASH partner cities, the guide also highlights obstacles and presents recommendations for developing financial engineering adapted to long-term and large-scale EE renovation operations.

8

The Danish Building Fund, Denmark National rent scheme and scoring system, Netherlands Green Deal, UK KfW programs, Germany Local financial instrument, Brindisi, Italy

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

9

Funding Investor/user dilemma Networking Recommendations for Managing Authorities

MORE TO LEARN

2

10

CASH MINIGUIDE NO.3 - FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENT RENOVATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING - MARCH 2012 / INTRODUCTION

STATE-OF-THE-ART How much money is needed? – The European context It has been estimated that the comprehensive energy renovation cost for a dwelling, is in average 23,000 Euro1 (in France). In order to reach the European CO2 reduction goals for housing, approximately 70 to 180 million housing units in the European Union (EU) need to be renovated according to low energy consumption standards. This would require from 1,500 to upwards of 4,000 billion Euros of energy refurbishment investments in the residential sector before 2050, which represents roughly 27% of the energy consumption in the EU. How can this be achieved knowing that energy costs should be reduced by a factor of 3 to 4 and that 2/3 to 3/4 of the renovation costs are often dedicated to general maintenance measures? The trend is to cover these costs in the long term by the added value of the building and in the short term through higher rents. However, it is often not possible in the case of social housing, to raise the rent and certainly not more than the expected reduction in heating costs. Thus, additional financial instruments are required.

Existing modalities to reduce the gap between investment costs and income Available financial instruments for EE renovation in the 9 countries of the CASH partner cities have been analyzed during the roundtable of the 3rd CASH transnational thematic seminar. They have been categorized into 3 modalities for reducing the gap between investment costs and incomes:

• reducing the investment costs, • getting additional income, • financing by a third party.

Reducing the investment costs

Loan capital, soft loans or green loans Relevant factors of these financial instruments are the interest charged on loans and the time allowed for repayment. Loan capital is the part of an organization’s capital employed that is not equity capital, that earns a fixed rate of interest instead of dividends, and that must be repaid within a fixed period. A Green loan represents a sum of money lent for environmentally-friendly investments (including energy savings), at an interest seeking both financial returns and environmental benefits. Soft loans offer flexible terms for repayment, usually at lower than market interest rates, and are provided customarily by government agencies. The difference with the commercial interest rate is mostly covered by the government. Bank guarantee This tool consists in government taking over the bank guarantee to facilitate access to loans for low-income private homeowners, social housing organizations, or socio economically deprived groups of homeowners. Tax credits and VAT reduction In some countries, investments for energy improvements “Energy Retrofitting of social housing through energy performance contracts – A feedback from the FRESH project: France, Italy, United Kingdom and Bulgaria.” See www.fresh-project.eu 1

can be deducted from income tax or have a reduced VAT rate. The German government has associated this tool with a certain level of energy efficiency that must be reached through the investment. Tax credits are less likely to be attractive to lower-income households. In some cases, big social landlords are excluded from tax credit reduction. Investment transfer to rent This represents investments paid back by a higher rent. For this tool to be used effectively, an appropriate legal framework has to be in place. In Denmark and the Netherlands, national regulations are in place. See also the chapter on the owner/tenant dilemma.

Getting additional income

European funds The EC supports EE renovation through different funds which are mainly short-term based and project-oriented. Many funds are difficult to access owing to their complexity or criteria. Among the European funds available for actions related to energy efficiency are: • European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is the most relevant for EE renovation programs with up to 4% eligible. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/regional/ index_en.cfm

• European Investment Bank (EIB) gives energy loans for the public and private sectors, including municipalities –for sustainable, competitive and secure energy - with long-term fixed rates.

http://www.eib.org/

• European Energy Efficiency Fund (EEEF) for commercially viable EE and small-scale renewable energy (RE) projects from 5 to 25 M€, targeting municipal and regional authorities and public and private entities acting on behalf of them, such as social housing associations, energy companies, etc. http://eeef.eu/

• European Local Energy Assistance Fund (ELENA) is a technical assistance grant available to local authorities, designed to boost investments in the area of energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy sources. This grant can be used to cover the technical support necessary to prepare, implement and finance the investment program, such as feasibility and market studies, program structuring, business plans, energy audits, and tender preparation, etc. http://www.eib.org/products/technical_assistance/elena/index. htm?lang=en

• The Marguerite Fund is an independent Pan European equity fund for Energy, Climate Change and infrastructure investments, including sustainable energy production and distribution. http://www.margueritefund.eu/index.php?pageid=1

• Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA) from EIB, promotes sustainable investments and growth in urban areas. It concerns repaya-

CASH MINIGUIDE NO.3 - FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENT RENOVATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING - MARCH 2012 / STATE-OF-THE-ART

3

ble investments in projects forming part of an integrated plan for sustainable urban development. These investments, which may take the form of equity, loans and/or guarantees, are delivered to projects via Urban Development Funds. Topics include: environment, innovation and promotion of sustainable energy sources.

teeing that a specified amount of energy savings has been achieved. In most cases, the white certificates are tradable. In many countries, energy companies have energy savings goals to achieve. The amount of energy saved in a housing project can be subject to trading.

How are the financial instruments perceived by CASH partners?

http://www.eib.org/projects/publications/jessica.htm?lang=en

• Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) program has targeted funding for creative projects promoting EE, increasing the use of RE sources and energy diversification (up to 75% of project costs) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/index_en.htm

Subsidies (often related to revenues) provided by local and national governments. These are national grants, accessible to all categories of beneficiaries (social landlords, co-properties and individual properties). Grants specifically targeting energy efficiency may be directed either to the social housing provider or directly to the individual resident. They vary in scale from large regeneration projects down to the household level. The funds mostly cover only a percentage of the real costs and are project based, with only a limited number of projects open to funding. Feed-in tariffs The self-production of energy, by solar panels or wind, can be supplied to the public electric power grid. In many countries, regulations ensure a guaranteed minimum price for this energy. This provides an income stream which can help repay capital loans. It can only be used when energy is being produced, in addition to energy efficiency measures. Market instruments : Energy Savings Certificates and Carbon Trading A ‘White Certificate’, also referred to as an Energy Savings Certificate (ESC), Energy Efficiency Credit (EEC), or White tag, is an instrument issued by an authorized body guaran4

KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED

Financing by a third party (TPF)

Energy Service Company (ESCO) and energy providers This financial mechanism involves the financing by an outside energy service investment company (ESCO) or by an energy provider. These investments are then paid off using the cost savings achieved. The investor installs efficient technology and maintains the system to make sure energy is saved. This might, for example, involve provision of the heating equipment, fuel and maintenance, as well as energy saving measures or investments in renovation operations paid back on energy savings. In some countries, as in UK, there are legal obligations which compel energy companies to contribute to the EE renovation costs. Energy Savings Performance Contract In this kind of contract, the contractor (public or private, or a holding) proposes the owner measures that will produce measurable guaranteed savings, committing itself to reach the level of savings defined in the contract. Projects are partly funded through energy savings and may result in future revenue for the owner.

CASH MINIGUIDE NO.3 - FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENT RENOVATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING - MARCH 2012 / STATE-OF-THE-ART

During a roundtable discussion, partners have classified financial instruments between ‘most successful’ and ‘most complex’. Most successful for the network are funds, grants, subsidies, soft loans, energy obligations and trading. These results are similar to the ones presented in the EuroACE report (2010) which has addressed more than thirty financial instruments. The most complex instruments are the transfer of investments into rents and 3rd party financing. To understand the main gaps in the financial instruments and the differences between countries in the network, the partners have developed the following grid which summarizes the financial sources available to different categories of beneficiaries. (See table p. 5) Key findings from the grid, depicting the situation in 10 cities from 9 European countries: • EU instruments are short-term based. Not designed for co-properties, they are mainly used by social landlords; • National financial instruments are mostly available to all beneficiaries but are predominantly short-term based, except in Denmark, Germany and the UK, with long-term instruments; • There are differences between countries regarding the contribution of tenants. The following ranking of financial instruments was obtained from CASH partners: • most successful: funds, grants, subsidies and soft loans, as well as energy obligations and trading; • most complex to implement, even if very interesting: third-party financing, transfer of investments into rents, tax

rebates and VAT reduction. In third-party financing, energy savings may not be large enough to repay the investments within a reasonable contractual duration.

the overall savings on public budgets in European countries, this situation has only worsened. • The available funds are often short-term based and project-oriented, which does not allow mid- and long-term planning needed for large-scale energy efficiency renovations. • Beneficiaries are confronted with complex procedures and application forms for relatively little funding amounts. • Lack of awareness among owners on funding and on the financial aspects of EE renovation, due to insufficient accessible information, is a widespread problem. • There is a lack of coherence between various financial instruments aimed at financing different parts of the renovation process. • Many municipalities are facing a fundamental lack of financing possibilities, thus with limited local action. • It is difficult to reach an owners agreement in co-properties. • There is a lack of control and monitoring of both the use of finance and of the energy usage after the renovation.

Barriers

The creation and use of innovative financing schemes depends on how prevailing barriers for financing and implementing EE renovation projects can be overcome. Main barriers identified by the CASH network during workshops are illustrated in the following ‘Barriers matrix’. (See p.6) Most common barriers in the 9 countries, represented in the top of the matrix, are: • Limited funding, not sufficient to meet important national targets. Climate and energy efficiency goals are often set by national governments. The funding to achieve these goals is not high enough or not available at all (see CECODHAS’ comment in ‘Potential solutions’ section). Due to Financial instruments in cash partners countries

Social Landlords

Co-properties / condominiums

Bridgend - UK

Utrecht - NL

Brindisi - IT

Tatabanya - HU

Eordea - HE

Frankfurt - GE

Les Mureaux - FR

CRRA - FR

Echirolles - FR

Sonderborg - DN

Yambol - BG

Bridgend - UK

Utrecht - NL

Brindisi - IT

Tatabanya - HU

Eordea - HE

Frankfurt - GE

Les Mureaux - FR

CRRA - FR

Echirolles - FR

Sonderborg - DN

Yambol - BG

Bridgend - UK

Utrecht - NL

Brindisi - IT

Tatabanya - HU

Eordea - HE

Frankfurt - GE

Les Mureaux - FR

CRRA - FR

Echirolles - FR

Sonderborg - DN

Yambol - BG

BENEFICIARIES

Private owners

FINANCING ENTITIES

Europe State Region Community

0

0

Banks

*

Private Tenants Others

* Coming project

s Revolving funds

0 Only on limited territory

Long term

Short term

Main gaps

Not appicable

Specific needs pinpointed by CASH partners As depicted in the ‘Needs matrix’ produced by the network, specific needs relate to: social landlords, co-properties and landlord/tenant dilemma. (See p.7)

• For social landlords, access to preferential loans and big-

ger loans should be facilitated. • Regarding co-properties, the use of an intermediary neutral body to manage the funding and the savings is seen as a key aspect, as well as the easier access to third-party financing. • As for the landlord/tenant dilemma, the question remains when renovating social housing: who will pay for this work and who will benefit from the saving in energy costs? There is a problem with split incentives, referred to here as the ‘landlord/tenant’ dilemma. The dilemma has many aspects: • in most cases, the costs of EE renovation cannot be neutralized by lower energy costs obtained from reduced consumption, the investor not taking advantage of them directly; • the investment remains unchanged while the revenues from energy savings are uncertain and depend on many factors other than the technical measures only; • other benefits are difficult to quantify: comfort of living for tenants, extended lifetime and added market value of the property for landlords; • the general interest of the society is served through the reduction of CO2 emissions and of energy dependency. In multiple-owner situations (mixed properties, different forms of owner associations, commodity regulations, etc.) the dilemma can be more complicated. There are different approaches to this dilemma: • let the tenants pay a global amount to cover all housing costs, i.e. rent, energy, water, waste... The owner can then adapt the various housing cost elements, without raising the

CASH MINIGUIDE NO.3 - FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENT RENOVATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING - MARCH 2012 / KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED

5

b So ol nd BG Ec erb or hi g r CR olle - D RA s - N Le - F FR s M R Fr ur an ea u Eo kfur x FR rd t Ta ea - GE ta H b E Br any in di a - H Ut si -I U re T Br cht id - N ge L nd -U K

Ya m

Barriers - Financial instruments for energy improvement of social housing

global amount for the tenant. This is mainly possible when there is no individual metering of energy use per apartment; • make all the elements of the costs transparent for the tenant, which should be an incentive to optimize energy efficient behavior; • an equal sharing of costs by tenants, homeowner and government. The UK “Green Deal” follows this principle, involving energy companies as the stakeholder (see ‘Example from partners’ section). In Germany, there has been discussion around a “three thirds” model, in which: • is covered by the tenant through a transfer of the investment to the rent, based on the expected energy savings; • by the investor/landlord, to cover renovation needs (without necessarily integrating energy savings) and for the added value of the property; • by State funding (or other), the State recovering the VAT (19-25% in EU), as well as some money from reduced unemployment and from CO2 savings.

Limited funding to meet important national targets/demand > existing funds Ephemertality of funds - Short term based: makes mid term planning difficult Complex and difficult procedures and application forms for little funds / complex EU funding Multiplicity of funding entities for the different renovation works and lack of coherence Owners not well informed about financial opportunities / no notional information platform Municipalities are underfinanced Blocs owned by different owners (mixed & co-properties) need agreement Reduction of state and regional public funding Lack of control and monitoring Risk of no -recovery of investment for district heating Long decision making process to attribute funds Legally binding instruments (i.e. loans) = owners don’t want them No warranty funds for the owners EE Result are not guaranteed High amount of contribution from owners Lack of financial mechanism at national level

In all these approaches, quality control, monitoring, payment regulations and communication are essential. Possible solutions to the landlord/tenant dilemma are partly determined by national legal systems (see section ‘Example from partners’).

Bureaucracy Many owners refuse mortgage of their property for credit Disparities of financial measures between regions makes difficult reaching national targets Social landlords not supporting investment for district heating increases tenants expenses Low cash flow social landlords

Potential solution for efficient financial engineering

Economic crisis generated banks liquidity problem and difficulties to obtain green loans Tenancy law: tenants have to pay higher rents without knowing if ernergy savings will compensate Insufficient rents for social landlords Many insurances needed Majority of housing built before 1945 are not renovated Not opossible for housing assoc. to get a loan without repayment which is not the case for private Access to mortgage is a problem for coproperties Fragmentation of the asset as a result of sale

Very strong barriers

6

Strong barriers

Whereas various financial instruments exist, the solution promoted by the CASH network, which arises from 3 working groups, is a financial engineering solution with the following ingredients: • long term, stable and simple financial instruments (as recommended by the Energy Efficiency Governance Handbook, 2010 and by the Inofin project, 2008), with preferences for revolving funds, preferential loans with fixed long term interest rates

CASH MINIGUIDE NO.3 - FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENT RENOVATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING - MARCH 2012 / KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED

The European level

b So ol nd BG Ec erb or hi g r CR olle - D RA s - N Le - F FR s M R Fr ur an ea u Eo kfur x FR rd t Ta ea - GE ta H b E Br any in di a - H Ut si -I U re T Br cht id - N ge L nd -U K

quickly accessible to all categories of beneficiaries, secured Third party financing and the obligation for energy companies to reinvest in EE improvements, as well as bank guarantee and initial deposit; • neutral independent coordinating body; • integration of EE improvements with water and waste to combine funding sources and have an integrated approach with a greater impact on carbon reduction; • involving tenants from the beginning of the energy renovation process (i.e.: in the co-design), as initiator of energy saving actions; • national information instrument.

Ya m

Cash Partners needs - Financial instruments for energy improvement of social housing

Simple, understandable and long term financial products / standardization required Greater contribution from Europe and states Common approach for co-properties Better promotion of financial opportunities / National information platform Availability of starting funds and warrantees More funds for municipalities Need for funds at low cost for all (inculding the private sector and social landlords) Common approach for mixed / co-properties & ability to recharge for EE improvements (not only for improvements) Easier ways to get EU funds Harmonization of measures between regions

The recommendation brought by CECODHAS Housing Europe is key. « On 28 February 2012, the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy approved the requirement of Member States to renovate buildings owned by public authorities and public bodies (2.5% of the area per year). CECODHAS Housing Europe stresses that, in contrast to public authorities, public bodies covered by the obligation of thermal renovation, do not have the ability to self-grant public funds to finance these huge investments. Additionally, in the case of public housing, there is often no way to recover investments due to rent regulation and to the low-income of tenants. It is also important to note that the energy service contracting model, while promising, has yet to prove itself to be a valid option in the housing sector. Therefore, this legal obligation only makes sense if it is accompanied by an obligation to make funding available. Housing Europe calls on MEPs to rebalance this legal obligation to invest with a legal obligation to make available EU funding, including the priority allocation of Structural Funds for 2014-2020 and the creation of a dedicated green investment fund guaranteed by the EU. » Claire Roumet, Secretary General, CECODHAS Housing Europe

One entry point for funding / forming consortia Need for more funding sources coherent between themselves Allow government Village Building Fund to be used for demolition / reconstruction Elevation of regulation ceilings from EU procurement Larger projects Different options for private owners and subsidy scheme Rent index which considers energy measures Better control mechanism of loan programme Tenancy law with cost transfer mechanism based on reduction of energy Need for integration of legal framework and funding scheme Need to broaden eligibility criteria for beneficiaries / year of building construction / max. funding budget / subsidy % (flexibility) Enable social landlords to seek tenants approval to a financial contribution to EE works Direct funding for social housing Local agencies informing and organizing beneficiaries (with means to do it)

Very strong needs

Strong needs

CASH MINIGUIDE NO.3 - FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENT RENOVATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING - MARCH 2012 / KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED

7

EXAMPLES FROM PARTNERS The CASH partners have shared examples of good practices. The Danish Building Fund, Denmark

The Danish Building Fund supports the building and renovation of social housing in Denmark. This national fund started in 1966 and is fed by a percentage of rents (20%). In 2010 the value of the Fund was 100 million Euros. It is used to finance new building activities up to 40% and renovation of houses up to 50% of the costs. The State has a fundamental influence on the way renovations take place and can steer towards EE renovations. The renovation scheme contains a high degree of tenant involvement. Tenants are members of the Local Social Housing Department (through a minimal membership fee). Different renovation scenarios are presented by the social landlord to the tenants who have the right to refuse renovation investments. Decisions are adopted by simple majority. Criticism are that the procedures for funding are time-consuming and that the fund is not ambitious enough (up to Passiv Haus level 2). However, it is an interesting long-term, revolving fund.

National rent scheme and scoring system, Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the maximum rent of social housing is set by a national scoring system. The higher the quality of the house, the higher the rent can be. A recent adaptation of the system has included the energy label of the house in the scoring methodology, to motivate social landlords to invest in energy improvements. If landlords improve the EE of the house, a higher rent may be charged. On the other hand, if no energy improvement is 8

made until 2014, the scoring will be lower and rents reduced. The scoring for the energy label varies from 0 to 44 points and can be a considerable part of the total score of an apartment or house.

Green Deal, UK

In the Energy Act of 2011, the UK Government has announced a “Green Deal”, which intends to reduce carbon emissions from buildings, starting in October 2012 with the following characteristics: Every British home and business will be able to install packages of energy saving technologies, such as insulation, at no upfront cost. Repayments will be made over time out of the energy savings. A revolving fund will be installed. Strict standards will be put in place to protect consumers. A new requirement on energy companies is to provide support, with an estimated value of £1.3 billion a year, to ensure equal access to the Green Deal – regardless of income or of the type of house. Additional help will be available to ensure the fuel poor get better boilers and fix draughty homes while subsidy will also be provided to help tackle homes that are hard to insulate, including solid wall homes. The Green Deal is expected to kick start around £14 billion of private sector investment over the next decade. It could support at least 65,000 insulation and construction jobs by 2015.

KfW programs, Germany

In Germany the KfW-development bank has been operating funding programs for energy and modernization of residential buildings for more than 15 years. Their funding tools are soft loans and direct subsidies (Zuschuss). There is a wide range of programs for reducing heat demand, for promoting renewable energies and for the modernization of energy sources and dwellings. KfW’s main rule is that the higher the savings, the lower the interest rate or the higher

CASH MINIGUIDE NO.3 - FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENT RENOVATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING - MARCH 2012 / EXAMPLES FROM PARTNERS

the subsidy. Additionally, the services of a consulting body to determine savings potentials and to follow-up the works to ensure good results, is also funded. Over the last year, KfW has integrated funding for share properties (Wohneigentümergemeinschaften). On the one hand, KfW’s programs are sometimes criticized because they tend to change rather rapidly. On the other hand, they provide several guidelines for achieving good results and savings, thus contributing to the good use of State money. From the 1 April 2012, heritage-protected buildings can also be financed. KfW’s programs have been evaluated several times for their effectiveness in reducing CO2 emissions and improving living conditions. www.kfw.de

Local financial instrument, Brindisi, Italy

In Brindisi, Italy, the public social landlord IACP (Istituto Autonomo Case Popolari) regulates its relations with tenants through a mixed committee “Commissione di Gestione della Carta dei Servizi”, according to the charter “Carta dei Servizi. Through municipal deliberation, it has been modified to allow the tenants’ Union to receive 30% of the rents (of 30€ min.) for self-management, which could be used for improvements in agreement with the IACP. Discussions are underway to include energy improvements.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In order to improve the financing possibilities for energy efficient large-scale renovation operations, the CASH network has proposed a series of recommendations, presented as the ‘Frankfurt resolution’:

• “Soft/green” loans or other (revolving) funds must easily

be accessible to all homeowners, including social landlords. • Funds should be combined with guarantees for loans so third party engagements will be promoted. • Existing funds for house improvement should be more targeted towards EE.

Funding

Networking

Networking of all stakeholders is essential to overcome obstacles.

Recommendations for Managing Authorities

• To reach national and international climate and energy

goals, more funds and greater contributions are needed from Europe and from national governments for all homeowners. • The available financial instruments should be: based on long-term planning, be better coordinated, non-bureaucratic and accessible to all homeowners. • National information platforms could help to promote financial opportunities to all categories of owners. • National and regional revolving funds (supported by additional fees on rent or energy bills) can be an important instrument, favoring long-term and large-scale projects. • Bank guarantees from the government should be used to make funds and loans also accessible for co-properties and small homeowners. • Independent third-party managing entities should be created or supported to organize technical, financial and organizational aspects and monitor the measures. They could act as a facilitator between landlords/owners of the housing units and tenants. The role can be taken by local/regional foundations or energy service/supply companies or even by tenants’ organizations. • To guarantee the high quality of measures and a low future energy demand, high quality standards should be associated with funding.

to save energy and they also already manage energy financing for individual households. Therefore, they should play an important role in the owner/tenants dilemma.

Investor/user dilemma

• The increase in rents, or the payback of energy invest-

ments, should be compensated by energy savings (lowering of energy costs) to solve the “owner/tenant” dilemma. • To implement energy improvement in an integrative and optimum way, measures to reduce other running costs for water, electricity and waste -“the second rent”- should be included. • Financial support programs on a national, regional and local level should bridge the gap towards higher energy standards and limited rent increases for low income households. • A common approach for social co-property landlords and co-property of low income households should be available to overcome the problem of some owners objections. • All technical measures and energy consumptions must be monitored in a transparent and independent manner. Tenants have to be informed in a comprehensive manner. • In many countries, energy companies have an obligation

The management of programs supported by the Structural and Cohesion Funds is the responsibility of the Member States. For every program, they designate managing authorities (at the national, regional or other level) which will inform potential beneficiaries, select the projects and generally, monitor implementation. This paragraph contains recommendations directed towards the Managing Authorities. • European funds such as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) should not only be provided for energy measures in general, but should also be focused on social housing with an integrative approach (energy, living environment, maintenance and integration). • The combined use of EU funds such as ESF, ERDF, and EAFRD1, etc. and the stability of funds over the long term, should be favored. • The goals and results of the URBACT program and projects should be taken into account. • Significant parts of regional funding should be oriented towards the energy improvement of social housing. European Social Fund, European Regional Development Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 1

CASH MINIGUIDE NO.3 - FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENT RENOVATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING - MARCH 2012 / CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9

MORE TO LEARN Affordable Warmth for All A guide to improving energy efficiency in the social housing stock, for social housing providers, residents and supporting organizations. Guidebook produced as part of the FinSH project - Financial and Support Instruments for Fuel Poverty in Social Housing. 2010 www.ecuba.it/English%20Guide.pdf

Anforderungen an einen Sanierungsfahrplan, Auf dem Weg zu einem klimaneutralen Gebäudebestand bis 2050, www.nabu.de

10

Energy Efficiency Governance Handbook, International Energy Agency, Second Edition, OECD/IEA. 2010 Energy Retrofitting of social housing through energy performance contracts A feedback from the FRESH project: France, Italy, United Kingdom and Bulgaria, www.fresh-project.eu

Financing energy saving measures in the Dutch social housing sector - WP2 report to the InoFin project, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), ECNE—06-049, December 2006

CASH MINIGUIDE NO.3 - FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENT RENOVATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING - MARCH 2012 / MORE TO LEARN

Guideline on Social Housing Energy Retrofitting Financing Schemes in EU New Member States; 2008, report of the InoFin project; Innovative Financing of Social Housing Refurbishment in Enlarged Europe www.join-inofin.eu

Background Paper CASH Thematic Seminar Financial Instruments, Frankfurt, 7th, 8th and 9th September 2011, http://urbact.eu/cash

Partners contacts Lead Partner

Brindisi

Lead Partner Thierry Monel, Ville Echirolles, France [email protected] - Tel: 33 (0) 4-76-206060

Tatabanya Tamas Galgovics [email protected]

Lead Coordinator Sophie Moreau, Ville Echirolles, France [email protected] - Tel: 33 (0) 6-67846699

Utrecht Inge Van der Klundert [email protected]

Bridgend (UK) Elaine Williams [email protected]

Yambol Mariya Paspaldzhieva [email protected]

Brindisi (Italy) Valerio Costantino [email protected]

Conseil Régional Rhône-Alpes Claire Prédal [email protected]

Frankfurt (Germany) Werner Neumann [email protected] Les Mureaux (France) Brigitte Bonafoux [email protected] and Laeticia Bideau-Maruejouls [email protected] Tatabanya

Yambol

Eordea (Greece) Kostas Nikou [email protected] Sonderborg Inge Olsen [email protected]

Echirolles Elected member in charge of CASH Stéphanie Abrial [email protected] Echirolles Elected member in charge of Housing Carole Simard [email protected] Lead Partner Technical support team Stephane Durand,Sustainable Development Service [email protected] Sylvain Bove, Financial Officer [email protected]

Document prepared by: Sophie Moreau – Lead Coordinator, with the contribution of Lead partner team and CASH partners. Photography credentials: City of Echirolles, Sophie Moreau. Energiereferat City of Frankfurt am Main, Werner Newman. Layout: Clara Chambon. Translated by: Accent Mondial.

AN URBACT II PROJECT

URBACT is a European exchange and learning programme promoting sustainable urban development. It enables cities to work together to develop solutions to major urban challenges, reaffirming the key role they play in facing increasingly complex societal challenges. It helps them to develop pragmatic solutions that are new and sustainable, and that integrate economic, social and environmental dimensions. It enables cities to share good practices and lessons learned with all professionals involved in urban policy throughout Europe. URBACT is 300 cities, 29 countries, and 5,000 active participants. URBACT is cofinanced by the ERDF Funds and the Member States.

http://urbact.eu/cash